4 ms·
I didn't call your morality horseshit, I meant to just come down on the philosophy of relativistic morality itself. I've revised the original comment to make it
by clicks 13y ago
I didn't call your morality horseshit, I meant to just come down on the philosophy of relativistic morality itself. I've revised the original comment to make it a little more civil.
> I am okay with your morals, as long as they don't infringe too badly on my own.
If you continue down this route you're going to have instances in which severely deranged individuals can agree that killing people is good. Or, to give you a less stretched example: just because two newcons can agree that it's the best decision to just cut all Social Security to seniors who're unable to work because of their declining health, it does not make that decision a moral one.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoI believe in letting individuals define their own morals, so you were at least calling a significant piece of my morality horseshit. But anyway, civility appreciated, no harm done. You and I probably share similar morals about many things, but I don't believe science has all the answers. The difficult moral questions come down to a choice between a rock and a hard place. How can science possibly tell us whether the death penalty is moral, for example? On the one hand you have the idea of the right to life, on the other hand you have the idea of justice for families of the victims. There is going to be pain either way. Just because I am anti-capital punishment and I come up with some scientific experiment to demonstrate that this is valid does not mean that I cannot understand the positions of the people who are pro-capital punishment. If my family was murdered perhaps I might change my mind. Just because someone murders innocent civilians abroad, does that mean we need to sacrifice the lives of our soldiers to stop them? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Abortion is thornier still. How do you possibly begin to answer these questions with science?